The centre of the New Testament - Apostolic Discourse

What is the theological centre of the New Testament? Justification by faith, that's only really central in Romans 1-5 and Galatians 1-2. Jesus Christ - well duh - that is so broad as to be meaningless! Salvation-History, but doesn't that confuse the car with the driver? It must be resurrection then, but is the resurrection ofJesus Christ the centre of Philemon and Jude; and for that matter does the centre of the NT have to be the centre of every constitiuent part? It is hard to find a centre given the theological diversity in the New Testament and the differences in genres as well as differences in time and space that separate these documents.

I like Peter Balla who proposes a shared creedal summary, a kinda early "Rule of Faith", as the shared theological fabric in the NT. Then again Dodd's kerygma is an attractive option since it brings together the Gospel of Mark, Paul's epistles, and the Lucan speeches into a comprehensive unity. More recently, I'm interested in the notion of "apostolic discourse" (borrowed from John Webster and Kevin Vanhoozer) as it is the essential elements of the apostolic testimony to God and Jesus Christ. Of course that again begs the question, what are the essential elements of the apostolic testimony to God and Jesus ? I'm still working that out! For the moment, I'm tending towards certain "fixtures" that involve God, Christ, and the story of salvation as it is made in the NT. The word "gospel" is an encoded reference to that story which is decoded in the apostolic proclamation that details the relationship between the exalted Lord and Messiah to Jesus of Nazareth, the life of Jesus in relation to the hope of Israel, the identity of Jesus Christ in relation to the God of Israel, and the God of Israel in relation to the rest of creation.

Greg Beale on the Erosion of Inerrancy

Over at the Reformed Forum there is a session with Greg Beale on inerrancy. A few thoughts:

I appreciate Beale's arguments as I confess that I'm also not sure about using the incarnation as an analogy for a doctrine of Scripture, some postmodern views of Scripture are between weird and scary, and I am wary of parallel-o-mania in using ANE and Second Temple texts in biblical study. Concerns that I do have, however, are:

1. That a priori theological deduction about Scripture always trumps the phenomena of Scripture in formulating a doctrine of Scripture. A doctrine of Scripture should take into account Scripture's witness to itself, but also the phenomenon of Scripture's textual history and its relationship to its cultural context (Charles Hodge said: "Our views of inspiration must be determined by the phenomena of the Bible as well as from its didactic statements" [Systematic Theology 1.169]).

2. In my mind, there are undoubtedly antecedents to Warfield-Henry-Chicago from Augustine to John Owen. But I think you have to admit that modern discussions on inerrancy have been influenced by post-enlightenement critiques of revealed religion, philosophical rationalism permeating theological method, and the "Battle for the Bible" in North America. But the assumption, I think intimated by Carl Trueman in the interview, is that 17th century doctrines of Scripture were basically identical to the 20th century left me gobsmacked. I wouldn't deny the similarities, but we shouldn't deny the different contexts either. I get the impression that some think that God gave Calvin and the Westminster divines a private revelation of the works of B.B. Warfield. Yet Calvin was influenced by medieval views of Scripture and not by modernist ones! I would point out that some doctrines of Scripture from the period could define the Bible's truthfulness without using inerrantesque language at all, e.g. the Anglican 39 Articles (and see the recent GAFCON statement of faith - no reference to inerrancy: alas, orthodoxy without inerrancy is possible!!!). In fact, references to the autographa in particular were fairly spasmodic in the 17th century, but only now have become central. That is one clear difference between the 17th century context and the 19th-20th century context.

3. Why has "infallible" become such a pernicious term now? I know Fuller Seminary uses it and Rogers/McKim tried to redefine it somewhat, so it is guilt by association I suppose. But the word occurs in the WCF and 1689 LBC and I don't see why I should somehow be ashamed of my confessional heritage and be forced to use the word "inerrancy". The word "infallible" was good enough in the 17th century and it's jolly well good enough now. I would say, contra Beale, that J.I. Packer was right, the word "inerrancy" was basically absent prior to the 19th century. Who said Warfield is the standard to which the reformers and reformed scholastics must match up to? Admittedly, much of what is included under the aegis of inerrancy is absorbed under the older term infallible - so why not go back to using the word infallible if its in the reformed confessions?

4. That inerrancy requires rejection of certain genres and means holding very particular views of intertextual hermeneutics. The matter of genre should be settled by genre criticism, not by an appeal to inerrancy (e.g. is Matthew 1-2 midrash). On intertextuality (Beale is very good in noting that NT authors have "varying" levels of interest in the original context of the OT) we need to take a case by case approach and be prepared for some creative applications by NT authors of OT texts that was quite meaningful in its own literary context, but does not square up with modern literary criticism (e.g. Paul's allegory in Galatians 4).

5. I would say, with the Chicago Statement, that Scripture is "true and trustworthy" and that trustworthiness is anchored in the faithfulness of God to his Word.

New Book on NT and Christian Theology

One of the best books I've read in recent times is:

Markus Bockmuehl & Alan J. Torrance

Scripture's Doctrine and Theology's Bible: How the New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008.

The first essay on the Septuagint by J. Ross Wagner (who I must try to meet one day) looks at the Septuagint as part of the Christian Bible. He points out that there was no single "Septuagintal" text that the NT authors drew on, but a diversity and fluidity of biblical texts in Greek that, in an on-going process, translators were constantly trying to bring into closer conformity to the Hebrew text. He finally opts for John Webster's dogmatic theory of the "sanctification" of Holy Scripture that specifies how the Septuagint may legitimately lie with the Church's ongoing search for the Christian Bible. God speaks in and through texts that remain very human artifacts. The sanctification refers to the Spirit's election and overseeing of the historical events leading to the formation of Scripture so that the events themselves serve the purposes of God. The Spirit's superintending refers to the production of a text, not just its authorship.

In the second essay, "Is There a New Testament Doctrine of the Church?" Markus Bockmuehl, in his usually good form, contrasts the presentations of Ernst Kaesemannand (a then young) Raymond Brown at the 1963 World Conference on Faith and Order on the Church in the NT. argued for no unifying ecclesiology which emerges largely from his conviction that there is a plethora of christologies and theologies in the NT. In other words, the fragmentation of churches has its justification in the multiplicity of conflicting confessional positions in the NT itself. At the same time, Kaesemann raised ecclesial and canonical diversity to a metaphysical ideal, this is helped much by Walter Baur's Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, and embraced by postmodern discourse that idolizes endemic and irreconciliable diversity as a hegemonic metanarrative. Brown, in contrast, departs from Kaesemann by stressing that Luke-Acts cannot be reduced to a later harmonization of incompatible Palestinian and Gentile church views into a coherent construct. And the disputed or "pseudepigraphal" epistles are not a correction to Pauline and Petrine views, as much, a continuation of their style and thought. For Brown there are three areas of common conviction among NT authors as including continuity with Israel, apostolicity, and baptism/eucharist. Bockmuehl goes on to argue that there was a widespread perspective in the NT of the New Covenant people of God as the elect of the God of Israel. The Old Testament fathers are our fathers of the faith. On apostolicity, the Rule of Faith shaped the canon but was also shaped by it. As Irenaeus supposed, one cannot be in authentic ecclesial life if one stands apart from the apostolic foundations. Bockmuehl also contests Alfred Loisy's much repeated dictum that "Jesus foretold the kingdom of God, and it was the church that came". Bockmuehl maintains that Jesus did intend to found a messianic community since the intended outcome of Jesus' ministry was the Son of Man's messianic rule over Israel as its King. That required a further apostolic mission from his chosen disciples to gather the leaderless lost sheep of the house of Israel. That is why, according to the Synoptics and Paul, that Jesus expressed his thought on the matter by instituting a eucharistic meal that became the focucs of their remembrance and worship.

That's all for now. I might post highlights later on.

Messianic Interpretation in the Targums

The most thorough study of messianic interpretation in the targums is S.H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation (New York: Ktav, 1974) which conveniently provides a list of texts that give a messianic slant to (often) non-messianic texts in the Hebrew Bible. The list is cited on the hope of Israel missionary website (I'm aware of Levey's work but I confess that I haven't confirmed these citations just yet).

Gen 3.15 (Pseudo-Jonathan): "They are destined to make peace at the end, in the days of King Messiah"

Gen 3.15 (Frg.): "They will make peace with one another in the end, in the very end of days, in the days of King Messiah"

Gen 35.21 (Ps.-J): "And Jacob moved on, and pitched his tent onward to the tower of Eder, the place whence the King Messiah is destined to reveal himself at the end of days"

Gen 49.1 (Ps.-J): "As soon as the date of the End when the King Messiah would arrive was revealed to him..."

Gen 49.1 (Frg.): "For he was revealing to them all that was going to occur at the very end, the time of the Messiah."

Gen 49.10-12 (Onq.): "The transmission of dominion shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor the scribe from his children's children, forever, until the Messiah comes, to whom the Kingdom belongs, and whom nations will obey."

Gen 49.10-12 (Ps.-J): "Kings and rulers shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor scribes who teach the Torah from his seed, until the time when the King Messiah shall come, the youngest of his sons, and because of him nations shall melt away....How beautiful is the King Messiah who is destined to arise from the house of Judah...How beautiful are the eyes of King Messiah, as pure wine!"

Gen 49.10-12 (Frg.): "Kings shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor scribes who teach the Torah from his children's children, until the time of the coming of King Messiah, to whom belongs the Kingdom, and to whom all dominions of the earth shall become subservient...How beautiful is he, King Messiah, who is destined to arise from the house of Judah....How beautiful to behold are they, the eyes of the King Messiah..."

Exod 12.42 (Frg.): "Moses shall go forth from the wilderness and the King Messiah from Rome..."

Exod 17.16 (Ps.-J): "from the generation of this world, and from the generation of the Messiah, and from the generation of the World-to-Come."

Exod 40.9-11 (Ps.-J): "...and consecrate it for the crown of the kingdom of the house of Judah and King Messiah, who is destined to redeem Israel at the end of days...and from whom is to descend the Messiah son of Ephraim, by whose hand the house of Israel is to vanquish Gog and his confederates at the end of days."

Num 11.26 (Frg.): "At the end, the very end of days, Gog and Magog and their armies shall go up against Jerusalem, but they shall fall by the hand of the King Messiah."

Num 23.21 (Ps.-J): "The Memra (word) of the Lord their God is their help, and the trumpet-call of the King Messiah echoes in their midst."

Num 24.7 (Frg.): "Their king shall arise from among them, and their deliverer shall be of them and with them...Exalted shall be the kingdom of the King Messiah."

Num 24.17-24 (Onq.): "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but he is not hear; when a king shall arise out of Jacob and be anointed the Messiah out of Israel."

Num 24.17-24 (Ps.-J): "...but when a mighty king of the house of Jacob shall reign, and shall be anointed Messiah, wielding the mighty scepter of Israel....to wage war against Israel, in the days of the King Messiah...and those shall fall by the hand of the King Messiah..."

Deut 25.19 (Ps,-J.): "Even unto the days of King Messiah, you shall not forget."

Deut 30.4-9 (Ps.-J.): "and from there he shall bring you near by the hand of the King Messiah..."

I Sam 2.7-10: "He shall give strength to His king, and shall make great the kingdom of His Messiah"

I Sam 2.35: "I will raise up before Me a trustworthy priest, who shall minister according to My word and My will, and I will establish for him an enduring reign and he shall serve my Messiah all the days."

2 Sam 22.28-32: "and the deliverance which Thou shalt perform for Thy Messiah and for the remnant of Thy people..."

2 Sam 23.1-5: "...Said David, the son of Jesse, said the man who was anointed to the Messianic Kingship by the Memra of the God of Jacob...God spoke to me...and He decided to appoint for me a king, he is the Messiah, who is destined to arise and rule in the fear of the Lord..."

1 Kgs 5.13: "who were destined to rule in this world and in the world of the Messiah"

Isa 4.1-6: "At that time the Messiah of the Lord shall be a joy

----

Now obviously the vast majority of these glosses belong to third or fourth century textual witnesses and developed traditions about a messiah from the talmudic period. However, if we can use 12th century AD masoretic texts to reconstruct 8th century BC Israel, surely we can lean on 4th century texts/traditions to shed light on 1st century (even pre-70 AD) Palestineian Judaism (esp. since a similar messianic embellishment can be found in Old Greek texts). Generally speaking, I think where you have a Targum reading paralleled by a NT, DSS, LXX, or Philonic reading, then you have a reasonable case that the specific targumic reading is probably fairly early.

Book Auction for Charity

Due to some fortunate circumstances I have an extra copy of Adela Yarbro Collins & John Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008). It retails on Amazon.com for $28 (USD) or £16 (UK). I'm putting it up for auction in the comments section and the proceeds are to be sent to Compassion UK. Auction ends midnite Friday (postagge is free). It's a worthy cause, it is a cracking good book for anyone who wants to understand messianism and intermediaries figures as a background to the NT, and it is a great companion to Are You the One Who is to Come? written by moi.

Bird vs. Crossley - Part 2: On Premier Christian Radio

Over at PCR, is the second installment of the debate betwee myself and James Crossley. Here we discuss Paul, Christology, and more on the Gospels.

RBL Review: Bob Gundry - The Old is Better

Over at RBL is my review of Robert H. Gundry, The Old Is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations (Mohr Siebeck, 2005).

Doctrine without Scripture?

Sometime ago I was reading the website of a Reformed Institution that had a page detailing its official views on justification. There is nothing at all wrong with saying where you stand on controversial issues. I could agree with some of the statements, some I could agree with if they were qualified, some I could not accept, and some were just flat out strange. But as I read this document with all of its assertions about justification, I noticed that it cited many catechisms and confessions but it did not cite Scripture even once in the entire document. This left me concerned and confused (that is PC for it scared the daylights out of me).

What role does Scripture have in Reformed theology? The approach taken in the anonymous document mentioned above is concerning because: (1) It replaces Scripture with the Confessions. (2) It makes the Confessions the mediator of Scripture. (3) It assigns, by implication, the authority of Scripture to the Confessions. (4) It turns the Confessions and its modern devotees into a new magisterium and thus undermines everything that the Reformers themselves fought against and even died for, the authority of Scripture in the life of the church: Sola Scriptura.

Let me head off two potential objections. First, that the Confessions are a summary of what Scripture teaches. Yes and No! The Confession constitute an attempt to summarize and systematize the teaching of Scripture. As such, I can happily sign my name on the dotted line underneath the WCF because I believe, all things being even, that it represents the mind of Scripture. However, the Confessions are also interpretations of Scripture by fallible human beings and they place Scripture in a theological framework also developed by human beings. Thus, they are one step removed from Scripture itself. To cite the Confession then is not the same as citing Scripture and neither should we ever presume to think so. Second, we all interpret Scripture in light of some tradition and there is no neutral perspective and no strictly biblicist approach to interpretation. I concede as much. The Confessions and Catechisms represent the fallible attempt of men and women to articulate the infallible truths of Scripture. The Confessions/Catechisms represent the mind of the Reformed Tradition. Tradition is a tool for reading Scripture. We should read Scripture in light of our Tradition, but we should also read Tradition in light of Scripture!

For those in the Reformed churches, I ask you, should we cite the Confessions rather than Scripture in our doctrinal forumulations? I say unto you: "nay" and "over my dead body"!

1. We have the example of the Bible itself where theological truth is defined by that which is "according to the Scriptures" (e.g. 1 Cor. 15.3-8) and theological truth is apprehended by being good Bereans and "searching the Scriptures" (e.g. Acts 17.11).

2. The example of the Reformers themselves would lead us to believe that Scripture must be primary in our theological formulations and church life (not just derivative from commentaries on Scripture). Calvin himself said: “Let us not take it into our heads . . . to seek out God anywhere else than in his Sacred Word, or to think anything about him that is not prompted by his Word, or to speak anything that is not taken from that Word.”

3. Semper Reformanda means testing our doctrine, polity, liturgy, and church life to make sure that it is in line with Scripture not in line with the Confessions (not rehearsing the mantra that the Confessions are substantially without error and engaging in deviant labelling of those who disagree).

4. This perspective is also the view of one of the Reformed Confessions. Let me cite to you the 1560 Scots Confession XVIII:

When controversy arises about the right understanding of any passage or sentence of Scripture, or for the reformation of any abuse within the Kirk of God, we ought not so much to ask what men have said or done before us, as what the Holy Ghost uniformly speaks within the body of the Scriptures and what Christ Jesus himself did and commanded. For it is agreed by all that the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of unity, cannot contradict himself. So if the interpretation or opinion of any theologian, Kirk, or council, is contrary to the plain Word of God written in any other passage of the Scripture, it is most certain that this is not the true understanding and meaning of the Holy Ghost, although councils, realms, and nations have approved and received it. We dare not receive or admit any interpretation which is contrary to any principal point of our faith, or to any other plain text of Scripture, or to the rule of love.

Once upon a time, men could make doctrines for the Christian religion without reference to Scripture. It was called the Dark Ages. For the sake of the Reformation of the church, I urge my brothers and sisters in the Reformed churches to give serious consideration to the relationship between Scripture and Confession and not elevating (in practice especially) the latter over the former. Otherwise we will wake up one day and find ourselves enslaved to a new magisterium that claims to be biblical, but in practice, is far from it. There endeth the lesson.

Jensen on Bird

I am grateful to Michael Jensen for his generous thoughts on my articulation of justification in Bird's Eye-View of Paul.

Tom Schreiner vs. Australia

Tom Schreiner is a good man and a fine scholar, but I was enraged with post-colonial nationalism when I heard him say in a lecture recorded at Oak Hill College in London that he cannot tell the difference between a British accent and an Australian one. But all is forgiven now and I'm happily reading over his NT Theology and enjoying it very much. However, a few other Australians are reading it as well and have problems with Schreiner's unifying theme of God magnifying himself through Jesus Christ. You can read the critical questions posed by Michael Jensen and comments by Ben Myers.

Getting More Sceptical on Q

In recent years I have been becoming more and more pessimistic about the existence of Q due to my readings of Luke. Two particular texts burn in my mind:

1. Jesus' Confession Before Caiaphas

Mark 14.62: καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.

Matt 26.64: ἀπ' ἄρτι ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καθήμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.

Luke 22.69: ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν δὲ ἔσται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καθήμενος ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ θεοῦ.

I find it an amazing coincidence that Mattew and Luke would both independently qualify the Marcan Jesus' statement to the effect that "from now on" you will see/it will be the Son of Man seated besides the Power.

2. Jesus and the Centurion and the Eschatological Reversal Saying

Matt 8.5-10 and Luke 7.1-10 both include stories of Jesus' encounter with a centurion at Capernaum. This is unique among Q material as it is the only narrative in Q itself (and some rightly attribute it to an independent tradition known to both Matthew and Luke). However, Matthew finishes this story with a reference to a saying of eschatological reversal (8.11-13) and yet Luke has this same saying but in a completely different context (13.28-30).

Now earlier I thought that it would be unlikely for Luke to split up Matt 8.5-13 into two parts (Luke 7.1-10 and 13.28-29) if he had access to it when it would be so congenial to his pro Gentile interests. But there again, Matt 8.11-12/Luke 13.28-29 might be another independent saying known to both authors. Luke can also omit some missional material because he intends to bring it up in his second volume (e.g. Mk 13.10).

More telling is the fact that Luke inverts the order of the saying in contrast to Matthew, but Luke also includes "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων) which is arguably a distinctive Matthean expression.

3. Conclusion

I am gradually coming around to the position that Luke used Matthew, but I don't think I'm prepared as of yet to give up the notion that there were still some shared and independent traditions between Matthew and Luke consisting of both oral (e.g. the centurion at Capernaum) and perhaps even written materials (e.g. parable of the mustard seed).

But I'm not Synoptic problem guru and I'll leave it to other minds to figure out.

James Dunn on New Testament Theology

I've just seen that in May 2009 Abingdon Press is releasing New Testament Theology: An Introduction (Library of Biblical Theology) by James D. G. Dunn. The blurb reads:

"In this volume in the Library of Biblical Theology series, James D.G. Dunn ranges widely across the literature of the New Testament to describe the essential elements of the early church’s belief and practice. Eschatology, grace, law and gospel, discipleship, Israel and the church, faith and works, and most especially incarnation, atonement, and resurrection; Dunn places these and other themes in conversation with the contemporary church’s work of understanding its faith and life in relation to God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ."

Book Notice: Jonathan Knight, Christian Origins

Jonathan Knight
Christian Origins
London: T&T Clark, 2008.
Available in the USA from Amazon.com
Available in the UK from T&T Clark/Continuum.

Jonathan Knight is Research Fellow of the Katie Wheeler Trust and Visiting Fellow in New Testament and Christian Ministry at York St John University. He is the author of Jesus: An Historical and Theological Investigation (T&T Clark, 2004), Luke’s Gospel (Routledge, 1998) and The Ascension of Isaiah (Sheffield Academic Press, 1995).

Anyone trying to do all of "Christian Origins" in one volume is embarking on an ambitious task given the size and scope of the project. However, it is refreshing to have a single book on the subject as opposed to the multi-volume tome's by Wright, Dunn, and Hengel on early Christianity which take a life time to write and read.

The advantage of this volume is that it is concise, sufficiently critical where it needs to be but never esoteric, it posits the historical Jesus as a messianic claimant, it roots the early Christian movement firmly in apocalypticism (in fact Knight has a book forthcoming on that very topic), and deals with complex issues like Paul's conversion and the parting of the ways between Christianity and Judaism with simple and fair judgments for the most part.

Knight is clearly more at home in the Gospels than in Paul and I would contest some of his judgments in places. I think he is very light on Graeco-Roman context too. As for being a text book, I'm not sure if I prefer Knight's outline of Christian Origins over Christopher Rowland's book, but Knight is certainly in the same ball park in terms of value and a worthy alternative.

Table Of Contents

Part One: From Judaism to Jesus

1. About Christian Origins

2. The Nature of the Sources
3. In Search of Ancient Israel

4. The God of Ancient Israel
5. The Interpretation of Scripture
6. The Synagogue

7. The Temple

8. Jewish Parties

9. Diaspora Judaism

10. Jewish Eschatological Hope

Part Two: Jesus and His Mission

11. An Approach to Jesus
12. A Brief History of Jesus

13. The Message of Jesus

14. Who Did Jesus Think That He Was?

15. The Trial of Jesus
16. The Resurrection of Jesus

Part Three: Paul and His Christian Beginnings

17. On Paul the Apostle

18. Christianity before Paul
19. The Writings of Paul
20. Paul and Christian salvation
21. Paul and the Future
22. Pauline Ethics

Part Four: The Birth of Early Christianity

23. The Eschatological Framework of Christianity

24. The Post-Pauline Writings of the New Testament
25. The Emergence of Beliefs about Jesus
26. The Breach between Christianity and Judaism
27. The Symbols of the Kingdom
28. The Development of the Christian Ministry
29. Early Christian Ethics
30. The Rise of Gnosticism
31. Summary and conclusion

Appendix: The Gospels as Sources for Jesus

You can can read another review at at kata ta biblia.

The Fruit of My Loins

I am proud to be able to announce the birth of Markus Xavier Bird born at 0640 on the 24th of January 2009, weighing eight pounds and fourteen ounces (big bubba!). My wife Naomi was a brave little trooper and she did exceptionally well in what was an unexpectedly slow labour. During the birth I was mainly on back rubbing duties, but I did manage to read quite a bit of Johnathan Knight's Christian Origins book as well.

Naomi and I had a deal, I select the name for a boy and she selects the name for a girl. We both had the power of veto and Rafael Aurelius Amadeus Bird did not make the cut. So I picked the name "Markus" because the Gospel of Mark is my favourite Gospel and I like the spelling of "Markus" in Markus Bockmuehl's name (and I also like Bockmuehl's scholarship, esp. his book on Jesus, Philippians commentary, and the volume on Jewish Law in Gentile Churches). The "Xavier" part has nothing to do with St. Francis Xavier (the missionary) or Charles Xavier (leader of the X-men), but simply because I liked the sound of it and I once worked with an excellent military lawyer named George Xavier O'Kane who was a good man, but was falsely accused of being complicit with the mistreatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib in Iraq. I always wondered what the "X" in his initials stood for and when he told me, I thought that it made for a good middle name.

May Markus be red-headed, irenically calvinistic, and above all, be a lover of God and a follower of Jesus Christ.

Crossley on the Jesus Project

My friend and sparring partner, James Crossley, has a thoughtful and careful article in Bible and Interpretation about the prospects for historical Jesus study in light of the purposes of the Jesus Project. James proposes greater focus on the study of the Aramaic behind the Jesus tradition and attention given to socio-historical and anthropological explanations for illuminating the emergence of Christianity. Fair and reasonable points on anyone's score card. Though I would point out to James that: (1) Not all historical Jesus scholars operate with the "great man" view as evidenced by John Meier's "Marginal Jew" and Gerd Theissen's somewhat illusive "Galilean". (2) You cannot "explain" Christianity simply by reference to its socio-historical context and surrounding cultural currents because sooner or later you still need to do business with the text of the Gospels themselves: we need biography and sociology in our historical reconstruction! I assume that James would agree with me here, why else would you learn Aramaic unless you're prepared to go logion for logion and pericope for pericope. (3) I also plea to James to be equally "deconstructive" to the Jesus Project as he is to other bastions of scholarship on the subject matter because he rightly recognizes how theologically and ideologically loaded all historical Jesus scholarship can be.

What bothers me about the Jesus Project is two things: (1) The rhetoric that they will be objective and scientific is simply delusional to anyone who knows the meaning of the word "postmodernity" (and we have to ask what are they implying about the rest of us not part of their circle?), and (2) Does anybody out there really think that they are going to be any less ideologically driven than their predecessors the "Jesus Seminar"? For instance, the fact that they include Derreck Bennett's A Skeptic's Letter to Lee Stroebel on their website (Bennett is not a scholar as far as I can tell and he describes himself as a "pesky Internet blogger" and relies heavily on the work of Robert Price for his conclusions) indicates that this "project" has atheist propaganda as its objective. Look at the other array of anti-apologetics articles here too which don't strike me as disinterested scholars offering a careful and cautious voice in a complex scholarly conversation. You could easily download half of this stuff to internet infidels (a mixture of scholarly and amateur atheism on the web) and no-one would be able to tell the difference.

Where will the Jesus Project take us? Well, we call the Jesus of the Jesus Seminar the "Californian Jesus" (to use Gerd Theissen's colourful term). I suggest that the Jesus Project has a pre-fabricated Jesus ready to go which I will call the "Promethean Jesus", i.e. a Jesus who, if he exists at all, will be conducive and appealing to the editors of Prometheus Press an atheist book publisher.

New Reformed Seminary in Dallas

I am glad to be able to mention the launch of the website for Redeemer Seminary in Dallas, Texas. It looks like a great place for anyone who wants theological training esp. for ministry in the PCA and OPC. Serving at Redeemer Seminary is Michael Rasmussen who is Assistant Professor of Practical Theology and Dean of Students. Michael is also a Ph.D student at HTC doing his Ph.D in OT (a lecturer in practical theology with research interests in OT!).

HT: Daniel Kirk.

The exorcism of Jesus

The second volume of Joel Marcus' AB commentary on Mark 8-16 is due out soon. In a recent essay on "Identity and Ambiguity in Markan Christology" (in Hays and Gaventa Seeking the Identity of Jesus) Marcus argues that Jesus himself is exorcised in the Marcan crucifixion scene:

"If Jesus' death is demonic, then the death scene represents an ironic, kenotic reversal of the situation in the Beelzebul controversy (3:22-30), in which Jesus is presented as 'the Stronger One,' whose exorcisms prove him mightier than Satan. Now it is Satan who has suddenly, albeit temporarily, gained the upper hand, and Jesus' demonic cries might almost be taken as confirming the scribes' earlier charge: 'He has Beelzebsl ...' (3:22). This is not completely surprising, since there is often an ambiguity about exorcists, whose power over the demons may be seen by hostile critics as an indication that they are on the demons' side. The exorcist, therefore, inhabits a dangerously liminal space because of his commerce with the demons, and this commerce may either lead to his own possession or testify that he is already possessed. The Markan Jesus' demonic possession on the cross, if that is what it is, may thus be the terrible result of his grappling with the powers of darkness - a grappling that he undertakes for the benefit of demon-possessed humanity. The 'Son of the Most High God,' as the Gerasene demoniac calls him (5:7), takes his place among the possessed in order that humanity may be definitively delivered from is demons. Mark, then, may undestand Jesus' earlier exorcisms in the Gospels as proleptic of Jesus' own exorcism at the cross, just as he understands the healings in which Jesus raised people from sickness (2:9, 11-12; 3:3; 9:27; cf. 10:49) or death (5:41) as proleptic of Jesus' own 'being raised' by God (14:28; 16:6)."

Marcus' words could be said to comport with a couple of things mentioned in the Gospel of Luke such as Luke's comment that after the temptation in the wilderness: "When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time " (Luke 4:13) and what Jesus says to the cohort who come to his arrest: "Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour-- when darkness reigns" (Luke 22:53). But then again, it is another thing to say that Jesus was demon possessed, and the expiration of Jesus on the cross is more of a person giving up of his spirit (i.e. breath of life) signifying his death, than the expulsion of an unclean spirit.

New Anglican Websites

The GAFCON and Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans websites have been redeveloped and look swish.

Bengel on Acts

J.A. Bengel concluded his comments on Acts with the words:

"Victoria Verbi Dei: Paulus Romae, apex evangelii, Actorum finis ... Hierosolymis coepit: Romae desinit. Habes, Ecclesia, formam tuam: tuum est, servare eam, et depositum custodire".

"The victory of the Word of God. Paul at Rome, the culmination of the Gospel, the conclusion of Acts ... It began at Jerusalem: it finishes at Rome. Here, O church, you have your pattern. It is your duty to preserve it and to guard it".

Cited from Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, 221-22.

CNN on Gaza

I spent enough time in military intelligence and accumulated enough knowledge of international terrorism to know that I have very little sympathy for Hamas. But I do relate to the suffering and injustice inflicted upon the Palestinian people. Very moving is this video about a Palestinian doctor in Gaza.